N Yorks fracking company misses accounts deadline for second year

Third Energy

The shale gas operator that intends to frack at Kirby Misperton by Christmas has failed to file its company accounts on time for the second year running.

Third Energy UK Gas Ltd, along with four other Third Energy companies, should have filed annual accounts for 2016 by a deadline of a fortnight ago.

In January 2017, DrillOrDrop reported that Third Energy UK Gas Ltd was warned that it had a month to file its 2015 accounts or face being struck off the company’s register.

A similar warning was also issued to it in 2013 over its 2011 accounts.

When Third Energy UK Gas Ltd finally issued its 2015 accounts, four months late, it recorded a loss of £3.854m for the year ending 2015. It also owed more than £50m to parent and sister companies (DrillOrDrop report).

Third Energy UK Gas Ltd accounts page

The other Third Energy companies that should also have filed by the end of September 2017 are: Third Energy Offshore Ltd, Third Energy Services Ltd, Third Energy Trading Ltd and Third Energy Onshore Ltd.

The immediate parent company of Third Energy UK Gas Ltd is Third Energy Onshore Ltd. Its 2015 accounts recorded net current assets of £262,000. The ultimate parent company is Third Energy Holdings Ltd, based in the Cayman islands.

Third Energy Holdings Ltd established four companies which were all threatened this week with dissolution for failing to file accounts by their due date of 17 August 2017.

They are: Third Energy Ltd, Third Energy Petroleum Ltd, Third Energy Oil and Gas Ltd, Third Energy Gas Ltd.

On Wednesday evening (13 October 2017), DrillOrDrop invited the Third Energy group of companies to explain the reason for the accounting delays. This post will be updated with any response.

Last year, the company told DrillOrDrop:

“The 2015 accounts are in the process of being finalised. The company, and others in the Third Energy Group, have always and will continue to file their accounts in the proper manner.”

171012 rig Ian R Crane

Workover rig at the Kirby Misperton wellsite, 12 October 2017. Photo: Ian R Crane

“Seeking to hide greater losses”

The campaign group, Frack Free Ryedale, said today:

“Campaigners suspect that the company could be filing their 2016 loss late to hide even greater losses this year prior to fracking operations commencing at Kirby Misperton.”

Frack Free Ryedale said people living around Kirby Misperton were concerned about Third Energy’s ability to deal with any contamination if it went out of business. The group pointed to fracking companies that had gone bankrupt in the US, leaving pollution for communities and local authorities to clean up.

In 2016, Frack Free Ryedale asked the High Court to order the company to provide a financial bond. But the court rejected the proposal.

Sue Gough, who lives in Little Barugh, half a mile from the fracking site, said:

“What have Third Energy got to hide? The health concerns with fracking are massive, and there are enormous costs associated with the disposal of potentially half a million gallons of waste water per frack. It is deeply troubling that this company appears unable or unwilling to publicise its finances.”

Leigh Coghill, of Frack Free Ryedale, said:

“Third Energy are yet again demonstrating their lack of concern for procedure and process. This has happened with tedious regularity ever since we started watching them in 2014.”

Link to Third Energy UK Gas Ltd information on Companies House

24 replies »

    • Latest video update from Ian R Crane on Friday 13th.

      An interesting day for financial failures and corporate obfuscation and denial isn’t it? Well worth viewing if you feel this pernicious industry needs a peaceful and gentle push out the door.

      As always, enjoy! Have a good weekend amongst your family friends and local community, and perhaps further afield with a visit to the protection camp community.

      Interesting times.

      • I appreciate you run your own small business Hobbit but there is nothing “behind this” it is very common indeed for companies to miss deadlines. Crane doesn’t do himself any justice by looking the way he does, you can tell a lot about someone from the effort they put into their physical appearance, [Edited by moderator]

        • I find personal comments, inappropriate and bigoted. It is very easy to make personal attacks from the comfort of your armchair and when anonymous. t would be far better if comments were non personal, fact based and related to fracking.

        • Cheap comments about Ian R Crane’s appearance really demonstrate just how shallow and lacking in substance your arguments are. I’ve always found that the biggest culprits in everything that is wrong with the world invariably wear suits and ties. Bankers and politicians are some that come to mind.

        • Peeny – my clients include some of the biggest retailers in the world and not one of them has been incompetent enough to have failed to have filed annual accounts as far as I know. Neither has any company I have worked for or been supplied by.

          Keep trying to pump the stocks you are invested in but sadly for you the puncture in this industry’s prospects in the UK looks pretty big.

          Oh and can we see what you look like Peeny if appearances are so important?

    • Scotland Economic report on UOG

      If oil and gas prices were to remain at historically low levels, it would be unlikely that UOG resources in Scotland could be developed economically. A low gas price environment for an extended period of time would mean that development of the UOG resources would be unattractive and therefore the economic benefits that could arise from UOG development identified in this report would not materialise. The estimated cost of UOG gas in the Central scenario in this report is approximately 45p/therm, the average of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)[2] projected gas prices in their low scenario for the forecast period is 43p/therm demonstrating the current economic challenge for developing UOG resources in Scotland. Commodity prices are volatile and sensitive to factors such as supply and demand, economic growth and geopolitical events and any final investment decisions in UOG development will need to consider appropriate price forecasts at the time of the decision.

      In the unlikely event prices rose dramatically the North sea would produce and export more.

      No money in UK shale.

  1. A private Ltd company has 9 months after end of its financial year to file its accounts. Failure to do suggests incompetence / poor attention to detail, it has something to hide, or it’s having trouble convincing its auditors to sign off the audit opinion. To fail to file on time once is unfortunate. To do it serially starts to prompt questions.

    If it can’t get something administratively simple right, what does that imply for its attention to detail in safety and operational compliance?

  2. Ah, still judging people by petty visual illusions peeny? Appearance is an illusion, we have been here before, its not what people look like, that can be hidden and disguised by a false multitude of petty multiple anonymous identities, apparently several dozen of them.

    Its what people say and mean and do that matters. It is often the case that the more people concentrate on their outer appearance, anonymous or otherwise, the emptier they become inside, and then drive others away with their selfishness.

    Its what people do to help others when they are faced with a problem that requires a solution, not just looking exclusively after themselves and to hell with anyone and everyone else. Recent history tells of the horrors that such self interest have wreaked across the world.

    Its what real honest people do when they sacrifice their time and comfort and all the pretty petty illusions of conventionality in order to help other people to wake up to the damage being caused and planned by people who hide in behind paranoid anonymous shadows and razor wire fences and the co opted police and snipe and snarl at other people for daring to stand up and be counted.

    When this invading onshore industry start caring about the people they squat amongst and start telling the truth about the true risks of the industry and start to implement the safety regulations in full, when they cant even own up to their true financial position when required by law?
    Maybe we should all examine what the real purpose of all this government sponsored and industry driven division and manipulation and social engineering is about, though that is becoming clear day by day.

    And that is why they will never do it, so you better get used to it, “we” are not going to go away.

  3. It’s both amusing and satisfying to see the anti-frackers shadow boxing against the mythical “Peeny.” I created the hballpeeny ID, and debunked so much of their fanciful meanderings here that they now see me behind many of the anti-anti-fracking comments. I’m sure this comment will get under their skin enough to elicit some comments about my use of anonymous IDs, which is ironic because many of them do the same, but that’s okay. I know that deep down they understand the self-preservation instinct [edited by moderator]

    • It is quickly apparent to the moderators when a single user is employing multiple ids to post comments. While we don’t approve of this, nor understand why people feel the need to do it, we do currently allow the practice so that as many comments as possible can appear on these pages. We will continue to review the use of multiple ids.

      If you do post using a different id, your first post will be held for approval by a moderator before appearing on the site.

  4. BTW, Ruth gave so much coverage to the Scottish fracking ban (that was really a moratorium extension, but who cares about the facts, right?) but she has been ever-so-silent with respect to the public calls from the scientific leaders who provided expert counsel to the government demonstrating that fracking could be undertaken safely, and their opinion that the “ban” was purely driven by politics. Well, this is a “feel good” site for anti-frackers, rather than an independent news site, so I guess none of us should be surprised by this little omission, should we? LOL

    • Thanks for your post. In answer to your points:

      1. The moratorium extension was referred to as a ban by SNP and Conservative members during the Holyrood debate. In particular the minister Paul Wheelhouse described the moratorium as “an effective and immediate ban on unconventional oil and gas activities in Scotland”

      2. Ruth wrote an article on industry reaction to the fracking announcement A link to an article in The Times on reaction from one academic was included on the Headlines page under 5th October. A web search has uncovered two further articles in The Times which have now been included in the Headlines. Ruth writes articles when she has something new to add to a story and includes links, usually on the Headlines page, to other material. Please let us know via the Contacts page if you spot a story or other content which is worth linking to

      3. Yet again you are confusing independent with unbiased.

      • 1. Because someone else makes a misleading statement, do you believe that justifies continuing to mislead with that statement?

        2. The fact that the key scientific adviser spoke out publicly against the government decision is a story of great relevance. Objective observers would agree. You ran five headline stories about the decision, and thought that printing FoE’s reaction was worthy of one of those stories. Really? We all know exactly what FoE will say – it isn’t newsworthy in the slightest. But the key scientific adviser opposes the government’s decision and that gets nothing but a one line link, buried in another article? LOL.

        3. I’m not confusing anything, Paul. Independence means that you can’t be bought, but clearly you have been. You need to pay the bills, just like the rest of us capitalists. You depend on donations, and my guess is that 95%+ of your donations come from anti-frackers. You aren’t independent in the least. The anti-frack lobby owns you.

        • 1. The effect of the Holyrood statement is to ban fracking in Scotland for the lifetime of the current government (and in a democracy you can’t say more than that). The article: makes clear in its first line that this is an indefinite extension to the moratorium, and this is explored in more detail later in the article.

          2. We can debate what the site’s editorial policy should be, and you may disagree with it. In this case, only one media outlet (The Times) appeared to think that Chris Masters’ reaction was newsworthy, so I would question your assertion that “objective observers would agree” it was a story of great relevance. As mentioned earlier, we will always consider stories and links submitted via our Contacts page, so please draw our attention to stories you think we may have missed.

        • Hey Peeny – here’s a thought – if you don’t like the editorial policy here you could set up your own site [Edited by moderator]

          You could have as many IDs as you want, insult as many people as you choose and have 100% control of its editorial policy. Of course nobody would read it but that’s another matter.

          What you don’t seem to understand is that people donating to Ruth most probably do so because they value her accurate and complete reporting and not because the wish to have any control or ownership over the content. Not knowing who they are any more than you do I can’t say that with certainty of course, but it is at least why I made a small donation a while back.

          The fact that this site’s editorial policy doesn’t suit you, as an AJ Lucas investor, is irrelevant. [Edited by moderator]

  5. If GottaBKidding’s comments about Ian Crane’s appearance were [edited by moderator], one wonders what he wrote in the first place. To attack someone because of how they look is the last refuge of the scoundrel, as my grandmother used to say, and this sort of comment should be blocked from this web site, not just [edited by moderator].

  6. Nice to be back-and see nothing has changed!

    So, the big retailers all file their accounts on time? Maybe-but try telling Tesco to do a little bit better regarding accuracy!

    I would rather receive late accounts that were accurate.

    “Dirt cheap coal poised to make a comeback” after 2020!! Due to coal forecast to become relatively cheaper than gas. Now, who would have thought that? A.J.Lucas? Centrica? Ineos?

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s